England vs Greece

[Ocky]

Several things to remember;

1) This game was organised many months ago

2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday

3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks

4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup

5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!

End of!

Warning! warning! Filho is about to swerve severely off topic 

Well Ocky...if you read my earlier post you will see where I come from on this topic. But you see that point you make there...#4. I hadda say something about that. Europeans go on about the European Cup being harder to win than the WC. Its is so boring. Sorry, but the WC is much harder to win....

1) The WC is a longer and therefore more physically strenuous tourney.
2) The European Cup has fewer 'weak' teams, so the average quality per game may be higher in the group stages and the first knockout stage, but once you get to the final stages (quarters, semis, etc) the weaker teams are usually gone. To actually win the WC you not only have to be better than the top European teams, but you throw in Brazil, Argentina and maybe one or 2 dark horses. Just as high quality..but added variety in playing style to deal with...oh and did I mention you might have to play against a nasty behemoth like Brazil or Argie after playing 6 games (your European Cup would have been done already)
3) European teams can often create a 'home-team' atmosphere at the European Cup even when playing away from home. On average, much harder to do so in the WC.
4) When was the last time a traditionally crap team hit form at the right time and won the WC? never really. In the WC, the cream rises to the top. Greece wasn't winning the WC, even with its Euro 2004 form ..or at least..not as likely. That extra game lessens the probability an upstart will win cuz it's one extra chance for Goliath to take on David

No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.

Hi Filho,

So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!

I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking,  however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!

The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.

Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina  and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!

Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.

Sorry for the long post!!!

[Ocky]

Several things to remember;

1) This game was organised many months ago

2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday

3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks

4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup

5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!

End of!

For your information, I have been following english football since primary school (grew up in a male household, cannot be helped). Also, I have been living in england for years now. I actually liked england for years.

A few years after coming here I changed my opinion. I cannot stand the hype and false impressions. Yes, hype is all over the world. Delusional press included. It's the same with the US. Cannot stand their biasness.

England is not as bad I must admit. I guess it gets to me that they're so good on paper, but forever underachieving. And I also guess the english press and all the so-called pundits (especially these ole fogey ex-players) gets to me more so than the team. You've never really heard me go on about indiviual players (except probably Becks). It's all the shyte talk I can't stand.

I'm sorry but I can't see your point of view. I've seen a lot of your posts on this site and your anti-English stance annoys me. I have responded to a few of your posts, most specifically the one about the Panorama programme where you ridiculed English football supporters and you failed to respond to my very balanced reply. But to keep ridiculing the team based on what the gutter press write is seriously odd behaviour!!  Furthermore to talk about bias and compare us with the USA is completely irrational!!I though this was a football site but you somehow seem to have your wires crossed.

You do admit that they have good players and yet what annoys you is they underachieve!! Incredible!! How the hell do you think the English football supporter feels?? You see your missing the whole point about being an English supporter!!! We know they will underachieve, we know they will miss out on the penalty shoot outs, we know they will have a player sent of at the vital time, we know that a cheating Argie will score with his hand and claim the Hand Of God!! We know all these things and yet we still believe!!! We Still Believe is written everywhere, 40 years of hurt is still sung at the top of our voices. We more than anybody know what its like to be an England football supporter, it all goes with the territory and yet we still turn up at competitions in our thousands and thousands. Why?? Not because of the press, not because of the pundits, not for any other reason than we are proud to support our team!!!

[Filho]

Hi Filho,

So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!

I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking,  however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!

The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.

Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina  and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!

Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.

Sorry for the long post!!!

Nice post Ocky. I agree with some of your points but not all

1) Cool geographic advantage argument neutralized 

2) I think in most cases of the modern WC, there may be 1 'easy' group team if any. 90 minutes against a mediocre team is still more strenuous than no game at all. And to add that weaker teams tend to be more physical, you do not have an easy game and that's 90 more minutes to potentially get injured, or suspended. The only teams that got absolutely spanked this WC were European.

3) When I say the cream rises to the top, I didn't mean that the most talented team always wins...how boring is that? I just meant it is more difficult for an upstart to win it because that extra game reduces the probability of a fluke or the effect of temporary form...ever so slightly. You cannot imagine Greece or Denmark realistically winning the WC...(By the way...that is by no means a good thing..the more surprises the better) Calling Germany and Brazil poor in WC 2002 is ridiculous...they were good, just noone expected them to be after their poor qualifying campaigns...C'mon Brazil absolutely toyed with England, even with 10 men on their way to a deserved win and Germany played like.....well...Germany. France won in 1998 and Italy won in 1982, played in the semis in 1990 and final in 1994. Between them They've won 3 of the last 7 world cups and at least one appeared in 4 of the last 7 finals...you are tough.

4) Funny you should choose 1966 to start when the WC became relevant. When did England win again?  Just kidding Poor choice anyway. Since a South American actually won on European soil in 1958...it actually should count given your argument..It must have been an extraordinary achievement as most of the sides had to be European and travel must have been a beeyatch for those Brazilians. And there probably wasn't a samba drum or bare ass to be seen for miles. So in that case..European teams are even further behind their Latin counterparts...unless you want to say that winning the Copa America is harder than winning the European Cup? didn't think so.

5) FIFA rankings are crap..did you see the US rankings before the WC? Weren't the Czech Republic ranked 2 in the world...where was Ghana ranked? This really isn't a question of who has the most stacked federation. This is only relevant for the group stage argument which we've covered already.

6) Your point about how many European teams make it to the quarters and semis. well..it doesn't matter if 15 of the last 16 teams are European.In fact you're actually arguing that the WC final stages are harder than the Euro final stages, since your basically playing against the best teams in Europe who are either the best in the world, or not quite as good as one of the two best teams in South America. I think it's fair to say if you threw Argentina and Brazil into the European Championships it would be more difficult for a European team to win all the time. We may not agree about the group stages, but I can't see how you can't agree that the knockout pahse of the WC is likely to be a little more difficult than that of the Euro

Sorry for the long response as well. We could go on and on because it really is a matter of opinion and I like the points you amke. The problem is that no points in htis kind of argument are really free form counterpoint (I was just feeling generous about the whole home advantage thing to show I'm a good sport )

Good luck in Euro2008. C'mon everybody..let's all do the Crouchy

[Ocky]

Hi Filho,

Nice post! 

I'm not going to counter your arguments as we could be here all year! After all these are very good debating points, but I would just like to add something to your posts that could serve you well or maybe other people who are reading this!

2) A debating point either way here! Not convinced by your argument of physical teams etc

3) Again not convinced. Coming into this WC France had failed to score in this competition for something ridiculous like 10 games and x years. They had continually been turned over in friendlies and qualifying games. Yet again they were lucky to qualify for the WC and for a long time nobody expected to see them there. It was only the fact that Zidane came out of retirement that saved their campaign. Prior to that they went out in the first round in 2002 without scoring a goal!!

4) I picked 1966 because if you study the history of the WC that is the generally agreed position. It was the first WC to be televised worldwide and in colour. The final itself is still regarded as one of the most memorable of all time. Check out the FIFA website!! And again 1962 was an appalling competition held in the mountainous regions of Chile, England's stadium was a training ground in the mountains that only a few hundred people could get to! You mention 1958, what a year that was!! That competition was played in Sweden ( nobody knows why!) to crowds of less than 5,000. The English team of that year was still recovering from the decimation of the Manchester Utd team in the Munich Air Disaster 3 years previous where most the England squad had been wiped out. That year of course saw all 4 Home Nations qualify, England ,Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. England's group consisted of Russia, Austria and Brazil with Austria the red hot favourites to win the competition. England drew with Brazil 0-0 and then had to have a play off with Russia (no penalty knock outs!) and ended up losing 1-0 whilst Bobby Charlton sat on the bench the whole game much to the consternation of the whole nation! It was their 0-0 draw with England that inspired the Brazilian team, Pele & Garrincha being thrown into the team for the first time helped them to the final where they beat a very weak Sweden 5-2. I could go on!!

As I said in my original post, 'some people would say that the European Competition is harder to win' which implies I don't necessarily agree with the argument. To be honest I'm not convinced either way but what I am pleased about is that we get to compete in a major competition every second year rather than waiting 4 years. The other good thing about being an England supporter is some of the away trips we get to go on. This time we get to visit Andorra, Israel, Macedonia, Croatia, Estonia and Russia. Fantastic! Can't wait!!

Thanks for listening!!   

[Ocky]

Several things to remember;

1) This game was organised many months ago

2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday

3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks

4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup

5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!

End of!

tell them Mr. Englishman 
if wasn't fuh England and inventing football what woulda we be doing now? 

We would be playing cricket or rugby!!

 

[JDB]

Hi Filho,

So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!

I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking,  however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!

The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.

Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina  and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!

Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.

Sorry for the long post!!!

Ocky your arguments are very weak and considerably biased.

Firstly every tournament has tough groups and soft gorups. England were in a tough group in the Euros and not so tough in th WC, but the preparation that teams put into the 1st round games in both tourneys does not suggest that they are merely warm-ups.

Secondly, your judgement on the quality of teams is flawed. In EVERY tournament pre-tournament form and qualification order has NOTHING to do with the actual tournament and that goes for the Euros as well as teh WC. In 1992 Denmark didn't qualify and France had a perfect record. Did that make that tournament a "travesty". Also whether Germany came through the playoffs or not matters little because THEY QUALIFIED. Whether they used playoffs or not is irrelevant.

Thirdly,  if good teams from Europe get left out how come there are so many poor European teams that make it? Maybe Europe should find a way to let these "good" teams in and keep out the likes of Serbia, Poland and the rest of the non-contenders that are not named Germany, Italy, France, Holland, Spain and England. The reality is that football is a port of performance and what happens on the pitch is wahat matters and in many cases it is a crap shoot. It is undeniable that Europe is a strong confederation but they benefit by having 14 teams in the tournament because there are more teams with an opportunity to "hit form".

And finally it is funny that you say that in reality WC before 1966 are irrelevant. Whose reality is that?

[Midknight]

Hi Filho,

Nice post! 

I'm not going to counter your arguments as we could be here all year! After all these are very good debating points, but I would just like to add something to your posts that could serve you well or maybe other people who are reading this!

2) A debating point either way here! Not convinced by your argument of physical teams etc

3) Again not convinced. Coming into this WC France had failed to score in this competition for something ridiculous like 10 games and x years. They had continually been turned over in friendlies and qualifying games. Yet again they were lucky to qualify for the WC and for a long time nobody expected to see them there. It was only the fact that Zidane came out of retirement that saved their campaign. Prior to that they went out in the first round in 2002 without scoring a goal!!

4) I picked 1966 because if you study the history of the WC that is the generally agreed position. It was the first WC to be televised worldwide and in colour. The final itself is still regarded as one of the most memorable of all time. Check out the FIFA website!! And again 1962 was an appalling competition held in the mountainous regions of Chile, England's stadium was a training ground in the mountains that only a few hundred people could get to! You mention 1958, what a year that was!! That competition was played in Sweden ( nobody knows why!) to crowds of less than 5,000. The English team of that year was still recovering from the decimation of the Manchester Utd team in the Munich Air Disaster 3 years previous where most the England squad had been wiped out. That year of course saw all 4 Home Nations qualify, England ,Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. England's group consisted of Russia, Austria and Brazil with Austria the red hot favourites to win the competition. England drew with Brazil 0-0 and then had to have a play off with Russia (no penalty knock outs!) and ended up losing 1-0 whilst Bobby Charlton sat on the bench the whole game much to the consternation of the whole nation! It was their 0-0 draw with England that inspired the Brazilian team, Pele & Garrincha being thrown into the team for the first time helped them to the final where they beat a very weak Sweden 5-2. I could go on!!

As I said in my original post, 'some people would say that the European Competition is harder to win' which implies I don't necessarily agree with the argument. To be honest I'm not convinced either way but what I am pleased about is that we get to compete in a major competition every second year rather than waiting 4 years. The other good thing about being an England supporter is some of the away trips we get to go on. This time we get to visit Andorra, Israel, Macedonia, Croatia, Estonia and Russia. Fantastic! Can't wait!!

Thanks for listening!!   

Sorry...but i can't help it...

2) I'm not sure what your point is. France played three games in 2002 and didn't score a goal, In between that and 2006 they got to the QF of the Euro Cup (an underacheivement for them but they BEAT England along the way, as well as the other two teams and lost to the eventual champions) Before that they had won the Confederations Cup.
Between the Euro and the start of the World Cup, France lost 1 match and it wasn't a competitive one. Granted they had trouble scoring and rarely looked like world beaters but on the other hand virtually no one could beat them (Italy didn't for that matter)

Granted the return of Zidane gave them something they were lacking all around, but i am not of the opinion (and i've seen every france match since the euro with the exception of their first one and the one they lost) that they wouldn't have qualified without him. At worst they would have finished second and gone into the playoffs, but seeng that they would've been seeded, they'd have got someone like slovakia or norway, that they would surely have been able to beat over 2 legs. They definitely wouldn't have reached the final without him, they may not have even come out of their group, but it is unfair to say that they wouldn't have qualified (he played four qualfiying matches and he was largely neutralised in both the ireland and switzerland games - the 2 decisive ones)

4) the generally agreed starting point is 1954, when the 16 team straight, round robin then knock out format was introduced after the logistic fiasco of 1950. Otherwise you start from 1982 with the expansion to 24 teams and the creation of a real 'World Cup'.

From an organisational standpoint 1966 was probably the best tournament to date, but footballing wise...well here's a quote from planetworldcup:

Finally in 1966 it was England's turn to host the World Cup. The FA organized the tournament in an exemplary manner and the stadiums used were probably the best overall selection of stadiums used for any World Cup celebration up to date. The attendance figures were amongst the best ever recorded. But the teams of this 1966 tournament failed to produce the excitement and skills of what some of the past great teams like the Hungarians in 1954 and Brazil of 1958 and 1962 had. England were the best team of a rather poor selection of entrants. Sadly, the game had become more defensive, and individual skills had to make way for those of the tacticians.

The only people who still talk about 1966 are the English and the Portuguese...(and the Germans when no one else is around)

We already give you the props for inventing the games (even when we all know it was the chinese  , don't expect us to let you think you actually won the first world cup as well...

[Filho]

Hi Filho,

Nice post! 

I'm not going to counter your arguments as we could be here all year! After all these are very good debating points, but I would just like to add something to your posts that could serve you well or maybe other people who are reading this!

2) A debating point either way here! Not convinced by your argument of physical teams etc

3) Again not convinced. Coming into this WC France had failed to score in this competition for something ridiculous like 10 games and x years. They had continually been turned over in friendlies and qualifying games. Yet again they were lucky to qualify for the WC and for a long time nobody expected to see them there. It was only the fact that Zidane came out of retirement that saved their campaign. Prior to that they went out in the first round in 2002 without scoring a goal!!

4) I picked 1966 because if you study the history of the WC that is the generally agreed position. It was the first WC to be televised worldwide and in colour. The final itself is still regarded as one of the most memorable of all time. Check out the FIFA website!! And again 1962 was an appalling competition held in the mountainous regions of Chile, England's stadium was a training ground in the mountains that only a few hundred people could get to! You mention 1958, what a year that was!! That competition was played in Sweden ( nobody knows why!) to crowds of less than 5,000. The English team of that year was still recovering from the decimation of the Manchester Utd team in the Munich Air Disaster 3 years previous where most the England squad had been wiped out. That year of course saw all 4 Home Nations qualify, England ,Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales. England's group consisted of Russia, Austria and Brazil with Austria the red hot favourites to win the competition. England drew with Brazil 0-0 and then had to have a play off with Russia (no penalty knock outs!) and ended up losing 1-0 whilst Bobby Charlton sat on the bench the whole game much to the consternation of the whole nation! It was their 0-0 draw with England that inspired the Brazilian team, Pele & Garrincha being thrown into the team for the first time helped them to the final where they beat a very weak Sweden 5-2. I could go on!!

As I said in my original post, 'some people would say that the European Competition is harder to win' which implies I don't necessarily agree with the argument. To be honest I'm not convinced either way but what I am pleased about is that we get to compete in a major competition every second year rather than waiting 4 years. The other good thing about being an England supporter is some of the away trips we get to go on. This time we get to visit Andorra, Israel, Macedonia, Croatia, Estonia and Russia. Fantastic! Can't wait!!

Thanks for listening!!   

Thanks for the debate Ocky. Glad to see we can agree to disagree without stooping to the customary low blows. I like JDB and Midknight's contributions as well...not because they disagree with you  but because they made their points with skill and style.

I am definitely going to stop here, as we agree we can go on forever and it's only fair we both had a go twice. But the one fact you got absolutely wrong is that the 1970 WC was the first to be televised in color. I'm sure you've watched 1966 highlights ad-nauseum trying to see whether Geoff's shot really crossed the line...and I can assure you..it was always in black and white.

Cheers

[Ocky]

Thanks Filho,

It was broadcast on TV in Black & White but was available at the cinema in Colour!! 

[Blue]

Several things to remember;

1) This game was organised many months ago

2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday

3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks

4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup

5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!

End of!

For your information, I have been following english football since primary school (grew up in a male household, cannot be helped). Also, I have been living in england for years now. I actually liked england for years.

A few years after coming here I changed my opinion. I cannot stand the hype and false impressions. Yes, hype is all over the world. Delusional press included. It's the same with the US. Cannot stand their biasness.

England is not as bad I must admit. I guess it gets to me that they're so good on paper, but forever underachieving. And I also guess the english press and all the so-called pundits (especially these ole fogey ex-players) gets to me more so than the team. You've never really heard me go on about indiviual players (except probably Becks). It's all the shyte talk I can't stand.

Maybe we were a guilty of over-hyping our Warriors as well?

The media and fans of any country are going to back their team - England is no exception.

If you've lived here for years, its about time you got used to it....or move to Scotland